Nalgasucia507
Squire
No man. You shouldn't say that.
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Dear TW, I heard you're planning to **** up this great game.
- Thread starter metafa
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
- Status
Squire
No man. You shouldn't say that.
Lots of quotes and walls of text commin'
In no particular order.
Number one issue for both warband and bannerlord is the game simply wont teach it to you. You have to go through the hell of learning it on your own, or find a clan/trainer to help you. I highly reccommend a clan, as you'll actually learn the fun part of the game. TEAMPLAY!
I burst out laughing at that penguin waddle xD
In no particular order.
Singleplayer in absolutely zero way prepared people for multiplayer. The skill difference is so massive, after 6000 hours in singleplayer, you'd be shredded by anyone with 50 hours in multiplayer because the multiplayer...player would have learned how to manual block. Bannerlord doesnt train you for multiplayer either, and now they re-enabled autoblock....
Thats basically the problem of the criticism warbands combat got... I dont comment on trading for singleplayer because I never did it, my input is irrelevant to the conversation. Ok it looks weird, but you dont have to duel. I dont like duels in warband, because I think the feint spamming people do looks stupid and I didnt want to learn it. Thats my personal opinion and decision to do, just like yours. But I dont say oh the combat is terrible because of it, because I'll still beat most feintspammers because its not like its an instant win mechanic. I massively enjoy infantry in warband, but hate duel. If you watch competitive matches, note MATCHES not duel, you'll not see feint spamming, because if you're stuck in a feint, especially if you have to move your screen too much, you're so open to attack, its just not worth even trying. So for anyone who hates the way duel is, I get it, play actual Infantry instead.
People who tryhard and master the game should always have the edge in a fight, because they know what theyre doing. People really have to understand that tryhard people will always be the best, because they want to be the best...If you play once a week for a few hours on TDM, you'll never match up to a competitive player, you just wont have the skill for it, you wont learn the game the same way. Why on earth would you expect to? Why would we spend hours and hours fine tuning our skills when a player with 10 hours will beat us because the game simply says this is how its gonna be. Its unfair, and its unfun. I hate the git gud thing, but its a skill based game, you have to put in the effort if you want to improve. Trust me its worth the effort, warband was by far the most satisfying game I've ever played, and I hope Bannerlord gets there too.
(This is far far back but honestly I want to comment on this...) In warband a player can surprise you and kill you, for example just throwing out random attacks you didnt expect, but I dont curse out the game for that, I curse out the player, and myself for not expecting it. Its my fault I died, so I either get over it or I fight smarter. In bannerlord, there are mechanics that simply take skill out of the picture, which ruins the fun.
Then you trained in the wrong way, probably because you didnt enjoy the content so you didnt care if you got better. Based on the video I saw earlier, alot of the mistakes you do can be fixed pretty easily honestly, decision making, judging range and ofcourse, blocking.
If the combat is slow, fights will last for longer. If at a public skill level an infantry fight lasts for lets say, a minute, cavalry and archers will come in by then to finish the fight anyway, especially on the massive servers we're seing currently. And imagine this on a higher skill level. If skirmish ends up with a 1vs1 infantry fight at the flag, and combat is so slow the players are all attuned to it, it wont end. Well thats not quite true, crush the shield and then weapon pommel for 2 damage. FUN!
Then you and I play different games. Everytime I play siege in europe, people struggle to even put up their shield in time for me to hit them. The few 2 hand spammers I fight get stuck feinting forever so I just attack while theyre trying to stab the sun and they die. If you're fighting a competitive cavalry, yeah that sucks they'll beat you if you're inf, but if you as inf (spear inf) are on equal skill level, you should be winning that fight. Bind your View outfit key to Q and make sure if you're not very close to a fight, always have your spear out.
Bannerlord multiplayer feels fine because we havent entirely broken the game yet. We're on the ground floor of the game, so everything feels more balanced. Give it a year, and tryhard players will have mastered it. Bannerlord will be just as difficult for new players are warband is.
Thats a crazy statement, actually wild. So we're trying to undermine his points, but we're all circlejerk religious fanatics, ready to do anything to push our agenda? Hmm....
I get that, especially with a full server on TDM its way more stressfull than skirmish, hell more stressfull than tournaments. Theres a billion things to take into account, a ton of cavalry running down at you, are you walking into a crossfire? Lots and lots of throwing weapons flying all over. Thats more because of the amount of players, and therefore chaos. Try out skirmish, Its the fun kind of stress for the most part, and maybe wait for servers to be split up abit more for TDM.
Number one issue for both warband and bannerlord is the game simply wont teach it to you. You have to go through the hell of learning it on your own, or find a clan/trainer to help you. I highly reccommend a clan, as you'll actually learn the fun part of the game. TEAMPLAY!
I burst out laughing at that penguin waddle xD
This debate is over. 1.5 is a decent game now. The feedback has been so overwhelmingly positive that there is 0 chance they revert the speed or block delay to how it was before.
RCC_God
Knight
Still a ton to do to make it up to warband standards, but it is a very good start
Lmao, Warband combat is unplayable compared to Bannerlord. They have gotten it just perfect in Bannerlord, nowhere near the clunky system of Warband where your hits don't happen at all half the time.
Last edited:
Have you played Warband?
Probably not.
Playing right now, it's stupid how bad the combat system is compared to Bannerlord, we've progressed years ahead and it really shows
The latest 1.5 patch was done after the devs looked into the modified parameters from Silen which consisted of warband veterans to test and give their opinion about.
It's no surprise people like the combat now after Silen and others decided to make their own take on the combat
Realism breeds good gameplay. Thus it is a shame that Mount and Blade has never been realistic.
RCC_God
Knight
What medieval combat sim has realism that is good? I can think of realistic shooters that are good, but no realistic melee gamrs
Biyonik
Sergeant
while i agree realism usually breeds bad gameplay i can say kingdom come is fairly realistic in 1v1 situations but its quite fun. Wouldnt work as mp combat system though
Kingdom Come Deliverance has a pretty advanced combat system, maybe not a sim but it's complex alright
Complex =/= Realistic
Also kinda off topic but in my opinion KCD was not very advanced. In the end it comes down to just right clicking and getting free cutscene kills over and over again. Or if one would like just repeat super epic combos to get free cutscene kills over and over again but this time by left clicking.
Sheesh, I wouldn't know anything about that, never managed to pull off a single combo in hours of playing. Can barely handle any more than 1 enemy in melee until very late game too... Just kinda spam all the attacks I can and block as much as I can, but it's very difficult I find!
Biyonik
Sergeant
masterstrikes are crucial for the games combat system, and they are the reason why kcd couldnt be mp fighting system. If you master that you can manage 4v1s in hardcore
Define "realistic", because I feel like this is a loaded term that people use completely differently based on context. Do you mean:
1. Good satisfying audiovisual design (which might mean slow or exaggerated animations compared to real life)
2. Game mechanics that are designed purely to mimic real life with no external gameplay vision (i.e. the ArmA series, flight simulator)
3. Believable mechanics that aren't necessarily based on reality but avoid that "this doesn't feel right" feeling (i.e. KCD, Steel Division).
As far as I know there has never been a melee game in category 2. Melee combat is just way too fast, complicated and reliant on human reflexes to ever be properly simulated with a mouse and keyboard. The best we can do is rough approximations like in KCD or Mount and Blade.
Revverie
Go play another game.
Ok, you convinced me. You're absolutely right. Your argumentation is so strong and so deeply rooted into reason, that I cannot make any counter argument against that. I'll now go play another game as dictated.
- Status
Similar threads
